The application of Buddhist moral theory to contemporary social issues has come to be referred to as “engaged Buddhism.” The purpose of this new brand of applied Buddhist ethics is to highlight social activism over meditative practice and philosophical analysis. Traditionally, Buddhist practitioners have emphasized that the sources of suffering are psychological, and have therefore advocated—first and foremost—an engagement with one's own mind. In the Mahāyāna, moral development rests upon the realization of emptiness and compassion. But is spiritual realization truly a prerequisite for Buddhist engagement with pressing issues such as war, economic injustice, and environmental degradation? To what degree must a proactive approach to such issues fly in the face of, and challenge, the Buddhist tradition? And how exactly can the attitudes of freedom from attachment, compassion and wisdom be translated into social action?
Panelists
Sallie King (James Madison University)
Christopher Queen (Harvard University)
Karma Lekshe Tsomo (University of San Diego)
Barbra Clayton (Mount Allison University, CA)
Moderator
Damien Keown (Goldsmith College, UK)
Hi. Thank you for your wonderful talks. I very much enjoyed them and felt inspired by your remarks. My question is primarily directed towards Sallie, Ven. Karma Lekshe Tsomo, and Cristopher. Regarding karma: given interdependence, anatman, and the flexibility of karma mentioned by Sallie, is it possible for a person to affect another person's karma? By helping someone can one change that being's karma? Is the story of the Boddhisattva, the tigress and the cubs an example of this? (If I remember correctly, those tigers later on become the first disciples of the Buddha, yes?). Can we also interfere with some one else's karma to make it worse? If there is such an influence, to what extent can this be? May someone, for example, purify some one else's misdeeds? Any particularly relevant sources regarding this? Many thanks. All the best.
Posted by: Carissa Veliz | 10/07/2011 at 10:04 PM
For Sallie King:
Great talk! I have one small, perhaps humorous, but hopefully meaningful question. You said, correctly, I think, that desert (e.g., punishment in the present life for misdeeds in a former one) may be too strong because although one continues and is the same being in one sense, one changes significantly moment to moment and thus is not the same being in another sense. Agreed. My practical but also philosophical question is, why do I have to repay student loans taken out by some former, no-longer-existing ancestral continuant of my present pseudo-self? This is one form of no-self/liberation I would like to have explained... All kidding aside, while I am drawn in by this theory, how can anyone ever be held responsible for anything an instant after it happens, or even in the instant it happens (if nobody is there to perform the action)?
Posted by: Rick Repetti | 10/08/2011 at 10:45 PM